Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Love, Death & Robots in TV
Jul 7, 2020
Unique And Visceral Experience
Love, Death, & Robots is an adult animated anthology tv series on Netflix. The series is produced by Joshua Donen, David Fincher, Jennifer Miller, and Tim Miller. Each of the 18 episodes released on the first season was animated by different crews from a range of countries. It's also a re-imagining of 1981 animated sci-fi film Heavy Metal. Starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Topher Grace, Gary Cole, Samira Wiley, and Stefan Kapicic.
Produced by different casts and crews, and consisting of 18 stand-alone episodes, each under 20 minutes, the title of the series refers to the recurring themes of love, death, and robots in each episode. Full of terrifying creatures, wicked surprises and dark comedy, it's a collection of animated short stories spanning several genres like horror, comedy, fantasy, and science fiction. Captivating stories come to life with world-class animation in a plethora of tales unlike anything else.
This series was wicked awesome. Reminded me of some of the other animated anthologies I've seen such as The Animatrix and Batman: Gotham Knight, except quite a bit more NSFW. This series also gave me a Twilight Zone vibe but bit darker. More blood and guts and highly sexual. Even though it's pretty graphic, I really liked a lot of the stories they told and the twists that most had in the end as well. Some are kind of hit or miss or just better than others but I think that there is definitely something for everyone despite the gore and nudity and language. I especially enjoyed the following episodes, 1. Sonnie's Edge, 8. Good Hunting, 10. Shape-Shifters, 13. Lucky 13, and 18. Secret War. The way they went about the story telling and world building in each episode was phenomenal. I really feel that some of these episodes deserve their own individual films or series to do them better justice. I mean some were just so good and less than 20 minutes felt like not enough or that they could have been even better. I give the entire series overall a 9/10.
Produced by different casts and crews, and consisting of 18 stand-alone episodes, each under 20 minutes, the title of the series refers to the recurring themes of love, death, and robots in each episode. Full of terrifying creatures, wicked surprises and dark comedy, it's a collection of animated short stories spanning several genres like horror, comedy, fantasy, and science fiction. Captivating stories come to life with world-class animation in a plethora of tales unlike anything else.
This series was wicked awesome. Reminded me of some of the other animated anthologies I've seen such as The Animatrix and Batman: Gotham Knight, except quite a bit more NSFW. This series also gave me a Twilight Zone vibe but bit darker. More blood and guts and highly sexual. Even though it's pretty graphic, I really liked a lot of the stories they told and the twists that most had in the end as well. Some are kind of hit or miss or just better than others but I think that there is definitely something for everyone despite the gore and nudity and language. I especially enjoyed the following episodes, 1. Sonnie's Edge, 8. Good Hunting, 10. Shape-Shifters, 13. Lucky 13, and 18. Secret War. The way they went about the story telling and world building in each episode was phenomenal. I really feel that some of these episodes deserve their own individual films or series to do them better justice. I mean some were just so good and less than 20 minutes felt like not enough or that they could have been even better. I give the entire series overall a 9/10.
The Ghost is Clear (A Series of Midlife Curses #1)
Arial Burnz and AJ Nuest
8.0
Rate It
Book
A Midlife Crisis…or Curse…or BOTH? Life after forty is fun, they said. You can be whoever you...
Paranormal Women's Fiction
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk (2008) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"As far as I'm concerned, that man's whole body is property of the U.S. army."
I will defend this gem until the day I die.
The Incredible Hulk is without a doubt one of the most underrated, underappreciated film's that I have ever seen. There it is. I'm just putting it out there. Don't worry, I have my reasons that I'll get into but if you don't like this film, if you hate this film even, I encourage you to read this review. I encourage this because I hope to open your eyes to how beautiful and tragic The Incredible Hulk is.
For one, let's take it back to May 1962 when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced to us, in his very own debut issue, the Hulk himself. According to interviews, Lee spoke of how this film truly captured the essence of the character and the comics. In those comics, General Thunderbolt Ross, along with the military, was always chasing Dr. Banner ever since the accident. This is portrayed brilliantly here by Louis Leterrier. I'm not a huge fan of his work but I got to give credit where credit's due.
I don't even know where to start for positives because there's so many. For one, Edward Norton is brilliant (yes brilliant) as Bruce Banner. His performance is so emotionally subdued, filled with great sadness and longing. They even show him suffering from PTSD, which has never been touched on with this character on film. Really great stuff on Norton's part. We also get to finally see Bruce Banner be a scientist. We've seen it in the future films sure, but not to this extent. Bruce is working with scraps, using solely his wits, in a third world country . . . just like in the comics.
The story of Hulk is really a tragic love story. I got serious King Kong vibes from the similar dynamic here and it's beautiful. The chemistry between Banner and Elizabeth Ross is great. It's so believable; two people put in an impossible situation and making it work. That's love.
Hulk's character is so well realized here. He suffers from PTSD like I said, but the actual monster himself is perfect. They even throw in a bit of a horror vibe for the first Hulk-out scene. Oh yeah, there's numerous Hulk-out scenes!!! There's so many great omages to the comics as well and I loved every bit of it.
Lastly, looking at it from a technical side it's great. The cinematography is extremely well done and a total feast for the eyes. The pacing is great and goes by like the snap of Thanos himself. The editing is top-notch. The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is one of my favorites of all time and is so iconic and beautiful. Finally, there's a serious tone. FINALLY. There are some well incorporated jokes but unlike some other Marvel films, it's not overbearing.
As for negatives, they are almost none to nonexistent. Really just nitpicks. The taxi scene is a bit unrealistic and silly. It's the only scene of humor that felt a bit forced and silly, yet I can easily ignore it. But since this is an analysis, I had to mention it. Also, unlike Ruffalo's Hulk, Norton's Hulk doesn't look very similar to Norton himself. Again, purely a nitpick.
Overall, I absolutely love The Incredible Hulk
The Incredible Hulk is without a doubt one of the most underrated, underappreciated film's that I have ever seen. There it is. I'm just putting it out there. Don't worry, I have my reasons that I'll get into but if you don't like this film, if you hate this film even, I encourage you to read this review. I encourage this because I hope to open your eyes to how beautiful and tragic The Incredible Hulk is.
For one, let's take it back to May 1962 when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced to us, in his very own debut issue, the Hulk himself. According to interviews, Lee spoke of how this film truly captured the essence of the character and the comics. In those comics, General Thunderbolt Ross, along with the military, was always chasing Dr. Banner ever since the accident. This is portrayed brilliantly here by Louis Leterrier. I'm not a huge fan of his work but I got to give credit where credit's due.
I don't even know where to start for positives because there's so many. For one, Edward Norton is brilliant (yes brilliant) as Bruce Banner. His performance is so emotionally subdued, filled with great sadness and longing. They even show him suffering from PTSD, which has never been touched on with this character on film. Really great stuff on Norton's part. We also get to finally see Bruce Banner be a scientist. We've seen it in the future films sure, but not to this extent. Bruce is working with scraps, using solely his wits, in a third world country . . . just like in the comics.
The story of Hulk is really a tragic love story. I got serious King Kong vibes from the similar dynamic here and it's beautiful. The chemistry between Banner and Elizabeth Ross is great. It's so believable; two people put in an impossible situation and making it work. That's love.
Hulk's character is so well realized here. He suffers from PTSD like I said, but the actual monster himself is perfect. They even throw in a bit of a horror vibe for the first Hulk-out scene. Oh yeah, there's numerous Hulk-out scenes!!! There's so many great omages to the comics as well and I loved every bit of it.
Lastly, looking at it from a technical side it's great. The cinematography is extremely well done and a total feast for the eyes. The pacing is great and goes by like the snap of Thanos himself. The editing is top-notch. The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is one of my favorites of all time and is so iconic and beautiful. Finally, there's a serious tone. FINALLY. There are some well incorporated jokes but unlike some other Marvel films, it's not overbearing.
As for negatives, they are almost none to nonexistent. Really just nitpicks. The taxi scene is a bit unrealistic and silly. It's the only scene of humor that felt a bit forced and silly, yet I can easily ignore it. But since this is an analysis, I had to mention it. Also, unlike Ruffalo's Hulk, Norton's Hulk doesn't look very similar to Norton himself. Again, purely a nitpick.
Overall, I absolutely love The Incredible Hulk
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Sep 8, 2020
God damn Tenet is confusing, and even that statement has a dual meaning - in regards to the plot, it's purposefully confusing to a degree (more on that shortly), but also in regards to my poor frazzled feelings towards the film as a whole.
For every moment where I felt myself switching off a bit, there was another moment which blew me away.
Back to the plot, Christopher Nolan has done that thing where he throws a load of faffy exposition and quick cuts, with thread bare explanation, before bringing in a massive pay off to sort of tie it all together. Not too dissimilar to Inception, but way harder to follow.
By the time the credits rolled, I think I had a good enough grasp on what happened, but still will probably need another viewing to piece it together.
Something that is beyond doubt however, is the aesthetics on display. Tenet looks amazing. The action set pieces are breathtaking at times. The last 45 minutes in particular is an absolute pleasure to look at, and the idea of some people functioning in reverse makes for some hugely eye pleasing fight scenes.
Another positive to take from Tenet is the cast. John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, and Elizabeth Debicki are all great as per usual, and are supported by the likes of Kenneth Branagh and Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Branagh especially is a convincing, nasty villain.
There's been a lot of discussion surrounding the sound mixing - and I can honestly see why. A lot of the dialogue is cancelled out by either the (pretty damn good) music score, or swamped underneath obnoxiously loud sound effects. Whether this is a stylistic choice by Nolan or not, it does negatively impact the experience.
Ultimately, Tenet is enjoyable enough, but I feel like it's not as clever as it wants you to think. That being said, maybe I'm just not clever enough to truly get it. It's proving to be a divisive film however, so it's definitely worth seeing for yourself to reach a conclusion.
For every moment where I felt myself switching off a bit, there was another moment which blew me away.
Back to the plot, Christopher Nolan has done that thing where he throws a load of faffy exposition and quick cuts, with thread bare explanation, before bringing in a massive pay off to sort of tie it all together. Not too dissimilar to Inception, but way harder to follow.
By the time the credits rolled, I think I had a good enough grasp on what happened, but still will probably need another viewing to piece it together.
Something that is beyond doubt however, is the aesthetics on display. Tenet looks amazing. The action set pieces are breathtaking at times. The last 45 minutes in particular is an absolute pleasure to look at, and the idea of some people functioning in reverse makes for some hugely eye pleasing fight scenes.
Another positive to take from Tenet is the cast. John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, and Elizabeth Debicki are all great as per usual, and are supported by the likes of Kenneth Branagh and Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Branagh especially is a convincing, nasty villain.
There's been a lot of discussion surrounding the sound mixing - and I can honestly see why. A lot of the dialogue is cancelled out by either the (pretty damn good) music score, or swamped underneath obnoxiously loud sound effects. Whether this is a stylistic choice by Nolan or not, it does negatively impact the experience.
Ultimately, Tenet is enjoyable enough, but I feel like it's not as clever as it wants you to think. That being said, maybe I'm just not clever enough to truly get it. It's proving to be a divisive film however, so it's definitely worth seeing for yourself to reach a conclusion.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Where Are You Hiding, God? in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Where Are You Hiding, God?</i> is a children’s picture book by the Austrian illustrator Elisabeth Zartl. Originally published in 2013 under the German title <i>Wo versteckst du dich, lieber Gott?</i> it has been translated into English in order to reach a wider audience. Primarily targeted at children of Christian families, the book attempts to explain the concept of God.
The short story begins with an anonymous little girl searching for God in a manner that resembles a game of Hide and Seek. She looks in her bedroom, the bathroom and the garden before giving up in defeat. As she sits desolately alone, a gust of wind and a falling leaf prompt her to realise that God does not have a corporeal body, but is, in fact, everywhere. Exhilarated by her newfound understanding, she exclaims that God was in all the places she looked and that he is inside her, too. God is everywhere.
Aimed at children ages three and over, <i>Where Are You Hiding, God?</i> explores the confusion a child may have in comprehending the idea of God. For a child, knowing something or someone is there but not being able to see them is a difficult idea to grasp. This book, through the demonstration of someone their own age, helps to explain their questions and uncertainties.
Elizabeth Zartl’s illustrations capture the attention of those reading or looking at the pages. Filling each page with a full-colour palette, the drawings are child-friendly but realistic, making it easy to process, and accurately creates a visual narrative of the written words. The language is also suitable for the intended demographic and, although three-year-olds may not be able to read it themselves, they will certainly understand the story.
From a design point of view, the text and illustrations do not quite match up. The full-page artworks make it difficult to place the short sentences in a way that both elements can work together. This, however, is not the fault of the author/illustrator who would have originally been working with a German text.
Overall,<i> Where Are You Hiding, God?</i> is a sweet, short story that can be read to children or grandchildren over and over again. As well as being a source of entertainment, it introduces them to the beliefs they will encounter during their Christian upbringing and prepares them to develop a greater understanding of God.
Where Are You Hiding, God?</i> is a children’s picture book by the Austrian illustrator Elisabeth Zartl. Originally published in 2013 under the German title <i>Wo versteckst du dich, lieber Gott?</i> it has been translated into English in order to reach a wider audience. Primarily targeted at children of Christian families, the book attempts to explain the concept of God.
The short story begins with an anonymous little girl searching for God in a manner that resembles a game of Hide and Seek. She looks in her bedroom, the bathroom and the garden before giving up in defeat. As she sits desolately alone, a gust of wind and a falling leaf prompt her to realise that God does not have a corporeal body, but is, in fact, everywhere. Exhilarated by her newfound understanding, she exclaims that God was in all the places she looked and that he is inside her, too. God is everywhere.
Aimed at children ages three and over, <i>Where Are You Hiding, God?</i> explores the confusion a child may have in comprehending the idea of God. For a child, knowing something or someone is there but not being able to see them is a difficult idea to grasp. This book, through the demonstration of someone their own age, helps to explain their questions and uncertainties.
Elizabeth Zartl’s illustrations capture the attention of those reading or looking at the pages. Filling each page with a full-colour palette, the drawings are child-friendly but realistic, making it easy to process, and accurately creates a visual narrative of the written words. The language is also suitable for the intended demographic and, although three-year-olds may not be able to read it themselves, they will certainly understand the story.
From a design point of view, the text and illustrations do not quite match up. The full-page artworks make it difficult to place the short sentences in a way that both elements can work together. This, however, is not the fault of the author/illustrator who would have originally been working with a German text.
Overall,<i> Where Are You Hiding, God?</i> is a sweet, short story that can be read to children or grandchildren over and over again. As well as being a source of entertainment, it introduces them to the beliefs they will encounter during their Christian upbringing and prepares them to develop a greater understanding of God.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway (2021) in Movies
Jul 25, 2021
Script this time appeals to both Kids and Adults (1 more)
Gleeson, Byrne and Oyelowo are great together
This bunny has legs
I appreciate I'm over 2 months late in seeing "Peter Rabbit 2". But the grandkids were staying for the weekend and wanted to see it again!
Positives:
- This time the movie manages - "Paddington 2" style - to find a good balance between slapstick jokes that appeal to the target younger audience (my grandkids were roaring at certain bits) and the 'dragalong' adult audience. Some of these are gorgeously surreal - like the skiing badger in the Alps as a "university prank". It certainly passes the "6 laugh" test for a comedy, and generated a couple of good guffaws (the Austin Powers landing in the Aston Martin and the subsequent take-off was one for me).
- In the first movie, James Corden's voicing of Peter Rabbit tended to grate with me enormously. Here he gamely plays up to that, accepting that he is a bit of a "marmite" character with a lot of people. It's a fine comic moment.
- Rose Byrne and Domnhall Gleeson make a cute and watchable couple. (Rose Byrne could read the phone directory for me). They are well supported here by David Oyelowo ("Don't look into his eyes") who is the least villainous villain in any movie in recent memory! Also fun are trying to spot the guest voice artistes who include Margot Robbie, Sia, Elizabeth Debicki, Sam Neill, Lennie James and Hayley Atwell.
Negatives:
- A few of the jokes don't quite land (a one-note cockeral story, for example, is overplayed).
- As I've been doing some Supporting Artist work recently, I've become obsessed with observing Extras and the continuity of Extras in shots. There are a few inconsistencies in the mix on this one!
Summary Thoughts: It's fair to say (although I never actually wrote a full review for it) that I was NOT a fan of the original Peter Rabbit movie from 2018. Corden grated; there was not enough for adult viewers and some of the included scenes were highly questionable: try explaining to a three-year-old why Peter was stabbing a dead old man in the eye with his finger! I've avoided watching it again on the TV like the plague.
This sequel was, I thought, much better, being entertaining for both kids and adults. I wonder if I now watched the first movie I might find it, in hindsight, more palatable? Perhaps I will give it a try sometime.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- This time the movie manages - "Paddington 2" style - to find a good balance between slapstick jokes that appeal to the target younger audience (my grandkids were roaring at certain bits) and the 'dragalong' adult audience. Some of these are gorgeously surreal - like the skiing badger in the Alps as a "university prank". It certainly passes the "6 laugh" test for a comedy, and generated a couple of good guffaws (the Austin Powers landing in the Aston Martin and the subsequent take-off was one for me).
- In the first movie, James Corden's voicing of Peter Rabbit tended to grate with me enormously. Here he gamely plays up to that, accepting that he is a bit of a "marmite" character with a lot of people. It's a fine comic moment.
- Rose Byrne and Domnhall Gleeson make a cute and watchable couple. (Rose Byrne could read the phone directory for me). They are well supported here by David Oyelowo ("Don't look into his eyes") who is the least villainous villain in any movie in recent memory! Also fun are trying to spot the guest voice artistes who include Margot Robbie, Sia, Elizabeth Debicki, Sam Neill, Lennie James and Hayley Atwell.
Negatives:
- A few of the jokes don't quite land (a one-note cockeral story, for example, is overplayed).
- As I've been doing some Supporting Artist work recently, I've become obsessed with observing Extras and the continuity of Extras in shots. There are a few inconsistencies in the mix on this one!
Summary Thoughts: It's fair to say (although I never actually wrote a full review for it) that I was NOT a fan of the original Peter Rabbit movie from 2018. Corden grated; there was not enough for adult viewers and some of the included scenes were highly questionable: try explaining to a three-year-old why Peter was stabbing a dead old man in the eye with his finger! I've avoided watching it again on the TV like the plague.
This sequel was, I thought, much better, being entertaining for both kids and adults. I wonder if I now watched the first movie I might find it, in hindsight, more palatable? Perhaps I will give it a try sometime.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Smashed (2012) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018
Awesome
After a horrible lie goes wrong for Kate Hannah (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), she finally decides she needs to do something about her alcoholism which is causing her life to spin out of control. Throughout this Movie-a-Day experience, I have already watched a number of classics (see previous reviews). I randomly sprinkled in some films I had never heard of, Smashed being one of them. This is one hidden gem of a film that I'm so thankful it found its way on to my list.
The messages in the film aren't preached, but still manage to resonate strongly due to a powerful delivery. Kate's character shows us that it doesn't matter how you start (or the cards you're dealt in life), rather it's about how you decide--and only YOU get to decide--to finish. Kate wants to change but she has no support system as her husband is just as bad as her. In spite of the incredible adversity she's battling, she decides to go for it anyway, refusing to make excuses.
What makes this so important is the fact that Kate is a complete wreck and you recognize it almost instantly. Her life is a downwards tailspin, kind of like watching a car crash in slow motion. Her story is layered seamlessly into the film and you slowly start to understand that she never really had much of a chance to be anything other than what she became. Winstead captures the role in phenomenal fashion, aided by yet another strong performance from Octavia Spencer as Jenny. Through the two of them, we experience a powerful meaning that says doing the hard thing will always come with a sacrifice.
Recommended. I give Smashed an 86.
The messages in the film aren't preached, but still manage to resonate strongly due to a powerful delivery. Kate's character shows us that it doesn't matter how you start (or the cards you're dealt in life), rather it's about how you decide--and only YOU get to decide--to finish. Kate wants to change but she has no support system as her husband is just as bad as her. In spite of the incredible adversity she's battling, she decides to go for it anyway, refusing to make excuses.
What makes this so important is the fact that Kate is a complete wreck and you recognize it almost instantly. Her life is a downwards tailspin, kind of like watching a car crash in slow motion. Her story is layered seamlessly into the film and you slowly start to understand that she never really had much of a chance to be anything other than what she became. Winstead captures the role in phenomenal fashion, aided by yet another strong performance from Octavia Spencer as Jenny. Through the two of them, we experience a powerful meaning that says doing the hard thing will always come with a sacrifice.
Recommended. I give Smashed an 86.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Happytime Murders (2017) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
As a huge fan of Melissa McCarthy, I wasn’t about to miss out on one of her films involving puppets. Especially when said puppets and film were made by Jim Henson’s son Brian Henson. That being said, just remember that these puppets are absolutely 100% “No Sesame, All Street”. “From the studio formerly sued by Sesame Street” STX presents The Happytime Murders.
Private detective Phil Philipps (Bill Barretta) is a puppet and lives in a world where puppets coexist with but are otherwise hated by humans. After a series of murders including that of his brother it forces his ex-partner Connie Edwards (Melissa McCarthy) to help solve the crime. The murderer seems to be targeting all former cast members of the beloved eighties TV show The Happytime Gang. Two worlds clash as the race is on to find the culprit.
Honestly I feel as though I could do without seeing this film ever again. Yes there are funny moments but it seems overshadowed by the lack of a good storyline. Granted audiences might go just to see puppets act raunchy and use profanity however, is that enough to hold a film together for 90 mins? No it certainly isn’t. As much as I love the comedic stylings of Elizabeth Banks, Mya Rudolph, Joel McHale and especially Melissa McCarthy, the film audiences anticipate being the funniest of the year is surely not. Even with a big cast of comedians couldn’t save this film. Perhaps films involving puppets and ridiculous plots should be left to that of children audiences. If you were to stitch together all of the comical scenes in every trailer for the film, you would basically see it all. In my opinion you might want to skip this one and wait for it to come to a Redbox near you.
Private detective Phil Philipps (Bill Barretta) is a puppet and lives in a world where puppets coexist with but are otherwise hated by humans. After a series of murders including that of his brother it forces his ex-partner Connie Edwards (Melissa McCarthy) to help solve the crime. The murderer seems to be targeting all former cast members of the beloved eighties TV show The Happytime Gang. Two worlds clash as the race is on to find the culprit.
Honestly I feel as though I could do without seeing this film ever again. Yes there are funny moments but it seems overshadowed by the lack of a good storyline. Granted audiences might go just to see puppets act raunchy and use profanity however, is that enough to hold a film together for 90 mins? No it certainly isn’t. As much as I love the comedic stylings of Elizabeth Banks, Mya Rudolph, Joel McHale and especially Melissa McCarthy, the film audiences anticipate being the funniest of the year is surely not. Even with a big cast of comedians couldn’t save this film. Perhaps films involving puppets and ridiculous plots should be left to that of children audiences. If you were to stitch together all of the comical scenes in every trailer for the film, you would basically see it all. In my opinion you might want to skip this one and wait for it to come to a Redbox near you.
Hazel (2934 KP) rated The Man Who Died Twice in Books
Sep 5, 2021
One Heck of a Hoot!
I have read and enjoyed the first in this series which introduced us to the members of The Thursday Murder Club and what a surprising and enjoyable read it was; this second instalment is, in my opinion, even better. You don't have to have read the first as The Man Who Died Twice can be read as a standalone but it will certainly help to have a knowledge of the main characters.
I am loving being back amongst the members of the Thursday Murder Club - Elizabeth, Joyce, Ron and Ibrahim and the additional, but definitely not superfluous, characters of Chris, Donna, Stephen, Bogdan, Patrice and Kendrick ... I love them all and really enjoyed getting to more about them which was skilfully woven within the story. The relationships they have with each other is special and really shows the value of friendship, trust and loyalty.
Reading The Man Who Died Twice is like putting on a pair of comfy slippers, a fluffy dressing gown, cosying up on the sofa in front of a real fire with the rain pouring down outside - perfect. Do not, however, be mistaken - this is not a cosy mystery, it is so much more than that - it has action, humour (lots of it), violence (although not a lot and not gratuitous) and tender moments all wrapped up in an excellent plot which is addictive and enthralling.
Is it plausible? Not really but its one heck of a hoot and I love it and cannot wait for the next .. there'd better be one Mr Osman!
Many thanks to Penguin General UK via NetGalley for providing me with an advance copy in return for an unbiased and unedited review.
I am loving being back amongst the members of the Thursday Murder Club - Elizabeth, Joyce, Ron and Ibrahim and the additional, but definitely not superfluous, characters of Chris, Donna, Stephen, Bogdan, Patrice and Kendrick ... I love them all and really enjoyed getting to more about them which was skilfully woven within the story. The relationships they have with each other is special and really shows the value of friendship, trust and loyalty.
Reading The Man Who Died Twice is like putting on a pair of comfy slippers, a fluffy dressing gown, cosying up on the sofa in front of a real fire with the rain pouring down outside - perfect. Do not, however, be mistaken - this is not a cosy mystery, it is so much more than that - it has action, humour (lots of it), violence (although not a lot and not gratuitous) and tender moments all wrapped up in an excellent plot which is addictive and enthralling.
Is it plausible? Not really but its one heck of a hoot and I love it and cannot wait for the next .. there'd better be one Mr Osman!
Many thanks to Penguin General UK via NetGalley for providing me with an advance copy in return for an unbiased and unedited review.
Maris (8 KP) rated Hocus Pocus and the All-New Sequel in Books
Jun 10, 2019
I can not tell you how disappointing this book was. Everything from the start of the sequel to the very end. I almost DNF the book, but since this is a sequel to one of my favorite Halloween movies as a child I wanted to finish the story. I knew it wasn't going to get better.
The beginning of the book is just a recap from the movie with more knowledge of the characters feelings and a little bit more about the Sanderson sisters. I'm pretty bummed out that the author left out my favorite scene from the movie which was when the kids ran up to the cop who really wasn't a cop! I just think that part should have been put into the book.
Once you get to the sequel its 25 years later on Halloween day in Salem. Max and Allison have a daughter named Poppy. I'm curious to why the author wanted the daughter name Poppy when everyone else has normal names like the author wanted the character to stand out more? Poppy has two close friends, Isabella and Travis. Poppy has a crush on her friend Isabella, and Travis who looks out for Poppy helping her with school, and social life with the other kids when Poppy seems to be getting attacked by others.
To sum it up without giving away to much of the story, Poppy doesn't believe in her parents or her Aunt Dani's story about Sanderson's sister when they were kids. Poppy, Isabella, and Travis head to the Sanderson's house and pretty much did exactly what her parents did 25 years ago minus the black candle.
It seems to me the author tried too hard to make this sequel to be better or equal to the first Hocus Pocus that she was adding too much of the same stuff from the first story. I didn't like the same jokes and it wasn't nearly as funny. The story was just too much for me and didn't have enough originality for me. One thing that was irritating was that Sarah Sanderson would say Amok Amok Amok in the first story than with the sequel she always seems to be repeating herself with words like Afoot and such.
You do get to read some familiar characters from the first story which was nice. There is a new character named Elizabeth who is Winnie, Mary, and Sarah's sister. I honestly didn't think it was necessary to add another witch to the famous Sanderson witches.
All in all this story wasn't it for me. Like I said I'm pretty bummed out about it. I couldn't get into the story, everything just seemed forced together and that the author was trying to hard to make this story stand out.
The beginning of the book is just a recap from the movie with more knowledge of the characters feelings and a little bit more about the Sanderson sisters. I'm pretty bummed out that the author left out my favorite scene from the movie which was when the kids ran up to the cop who really wasn't a cop! I just think that part should have been put into the book.
Once you get to the sequel its 25 years later on Halloween day in Salem. Max and Allison have a daughter named Poppy. I'm curious to why the author wanted the daughter name Poppy when everyone else has normal names like the author wanted the character to stand out more? Poppy has two close friends, Isabella and Travis. Poppy has a crush on her friend Isabella, and Travis who looks out for Poppy helping her with school, and social life with the other kids when Poppy seems to be getting attacked by others.
To sum it up without giving away to much of the story, Poppy doesn't believe in her parents or her Aunt Dani's story about Sanderson's sister when they were kids. Poppy, Isabella, and Travis head to the Sanderson's house and pretty much did exactly what her parents did 25 years ago minus the black candle.
It seems to me the author tried too hard to make this sequel to be better or equal to the first Hocus Pocus that she was adding too much of the same stuff from the first story. I didn't like the same jokes and it wasn't nearly as funny. The story was just too much for me and didn't have enough originality for me. One thing that was irritating was that Sarah Sanderson would say Amok Amok Amok in the first story than with the sequel she always seems to be repeating herself with words like Afoot and such.
You do get to read some familiar characters from the first story which was nice. There is a new character named Elizabeth who is Winnie, Mary, and Sarah's sister. I honestly didn't think it was necessary to add another witch to the famous Sanderson witches.
All in all this story wasn't it for me. Like I said I'm pretty bummed out about it. I couldn't get into the story, everything just seemed forced together and that the author was trying to hard to make this story stand out.